The data is very noisy, and the studies often don't match - as pointed out in the article. So I don't know where you get the idea that the data is "united".
As for who benefits: The polluters - big chemical, defense, agri etc; the people who we pay to regulate them (usually people from those industries); the corporate media who takes huge advertising money from those companies; the shareholders of all the above companies; and the politicans responsible for keeping the status quo going.
Take, for example, the Deepwater Horizon spill. The company paid out what, 1 billion in fines? Less than 5% of last years profits. The Obama administration helped minimize reputation damage and accountability. The media - all media - were barred from filming or investigating; not that many in corporate media tried. If shareholders had a problem with the lack of action, or the horrific decision to cover up the spill with Corexit, they were quiet as church-mice about it.
And that's one high profile example, out of hundreds, of just oil spills alone. Then there's the agricultural runoff, the pesticides, the insecticides, the food additives, the chemicals in cosmetics that are banned in other countries, the military waste, the toxins from cars and tire, the industrial accidents, the train derailments...
So... Yeah. There's some vested interests going on there, with no shortage of historical examples to draw from.
>Take, for example, the Deepwater Horizon spill. The company paid out what, 1 billion in fines? Less than 5% of last years profits.
How much should they pay? 100% of profits? Whatever percent you think it should be, do you think that if you spilled a bunch of used oil on the ground should you be fined the equivalent amount of your disposable income?
>The media - all media - were barred from filming or investigating
The wikipedia article[1] for that disaster doesn't seem to have a shortage of media on that topic. There's even photos from the government itself.
> The data is very noisy, and the studies often don't match - as pointed out in the article. So I don't know where you get the idea that the data is "united".
Well the comment you replied to said:
> the US (obesity, pollution, circadian cycles disruptions, etc.) is also the country with the smallest measured drop
and you said that the US is known to lie (with so many examples). So for that above to be a lie, many people across different states need to work in unison, delivering false results.
Also nobody really knows if this effect is really there to begin with, let alone knowing what causes it. People lobbying so organized across the states against an unknown is very unlikely.
